1,015 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,841 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
A school board cannot dismiss a nontenured teacher for making a report on a matter of public concern, even if the report contains inaccuracies, unless the inaccuracies were knowingly or recklessly made or the report caused a disruption to school operations.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, as the complaint alleged actions taken under color of state law, not federal law.
-
453 F.2d 54·
4th Cir.·
1971-11-26
·cited 32×
A school regulation prohibiting the distribution of printed material without prior permission is facially invalid if it lacks criteria for granting or denying permission and procedural safeguards for review.
-
310 F.2d 107·
10th Cir.·
1962-10-16
·cited 32×
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court disbarment orders or issue mandamus against state judges for actions within their jurisdiction.
-
Paul Donald Davis sued Georgia State Patrol officers Paul Waller and Shaun Browder after they shot him multiple times when he was forcibly driving an 84,000-pound logging truck at officers while being held at gunpoint by a violent fleeing felon, William Arnold. The Eleventh Circu
-
Cary Michael Lambrix, convicted of two 1983 murders and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting claims that the State withheld exculpatory evidence regarding a witness's a
-
778 So. 2d 978·
Fla.·
2001-02-01
·cited 31×
The Florida Supreme Court held that while the next of kin have a constitutionally protected interest in possessing a decedent's remains for burial, this interest does not preclude all Section 1983 claims. The court clarified that such claims require more than mere negligence and
-
The dissenting judge believes the district court's grant of summary judgment was premature because it failed to rule on a pending motion for a protective order regarding discovery.
-
The plurality opinion held that private defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in a section 1983 action. The dissenting judges disagreed, arguing that qualified immunity should not extend to private actors.
-
832 F.2d 748·
2d Cir.·
1987-11-04
·cited 31×
The court held that a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is available for violations of the Education of the Handicapped Act, and that exhaustion requirements do not preclude such a civil action when administrative remedies are futile or inadequate.
-
-
Judges are absolutely immune for judicial acts, including delays in ruling and decisions regarding notice. Clerks performing ministerial duties are not absolutely immune. The Attorney General is not liable without knowledge of the concealed judgment.
-
The court held that the City of Anaheim cannot constitutionally prohibit ISKCON from soliciting donations on the walkways outside the convention center and stadium, and that the city's solicitation ordinance is facially unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege a causal link between the City's alleged policy and the plaintiffs' injuries, and the evidence was insufficient to prove such causation.
-
The court held that the pro se inmate's filing, liberally construed, sufficiently alleged a causal connection between the Secretary of Corrections' actions and the inmate's constitutional injury, thus stating a claim for relief.
-
The court held that punitive damages are not available against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regardless of the egregiousness of the conduct.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's § 1983 action for damages without a proper hearing on the merits, and that the issue of the Mississippi replevin statute's constitutionality should be considered on remand.
-
The court held that the illegal arrest claim requires exhaustion of state remedies, while the excessive force claim can proceed on the merits. The judgment dismissing the excessive force claim is affirmed, and the illegal arrest claim is vacated and remanded.
-
586 F.2d 625·
6th Cir.·
1978-10-20
·cited 31×
Federal courts should not assert jurisdiction over child custody disputes, even involving aliens, as these matters fall within the traditional purview of state courts and require exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The court held that vacating a preliminary injunction against a state court action seeking to suppress First Amendment rights was an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that a complaint alleging arbitrary denial of a liquor license due to a lack of ascertainable standards states a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that the jury verdict of negligence should not be overturned based on the doctrine of assumption of risk, as the inmate did not voluntarily assume the risk of rape.
-
922 F.2d 1456·
10th Cir.·
1991-01-07
·cited 30×
The court held that the deputies were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity because their alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and violated clearly established law.
-
The court should not grant absolute immunity to a prosecutor for statements made at a press conference that allegedly create prejudicial pretrial publicity.
-
900 F.2d 1489·
10th Cir.·
1990-04-10
·cited 30×
The court's majority opinion applied the Eighth Amendment standard, but the dissenting judge argues that due process analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment should apply, with a proposed gross negligence standard for such claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim for wrongful termination was time-barred because the administrative action did not toll the statute of limitations, and their malicious prosecution claim failed because the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a const
-
The court held that the jury instruction misstated the law by applying a substantive due process standard instead of the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard for excessive force claims.
-
Prosecutors Wade and Isenberg are entitled to absolute immunity for actions within the judicial phase of prosecution, and Geter's defamation claim does not implicate a constitutional right. Officer Kuhn is not entitled to immunity if he procured false identification by unlawful m
-
829 F.2d 1056·
11th Cir.·
1987-10-13
·cited 30×
The court held that federal common law of preclusion does not require application of state claim preclusion rules to unreviewed state administrative decisions in Section 1983 suits.
-
The court held that attorney's fees could be awarded against the plaintiffs because their claims were largely frivolous, but fees could not be awarded against their attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
-
796 F.2d 668·
3d Cir.·
1986-07-16
·cited 30×
The court should reverse the district court's dismissal of the First Amendment claims, as the distinction between government servants and independent contractors is irrelevant to First Amendment protections against compelled political association and expression. The state's inter
-
The Eleventh Amendment and claim preclusion bar suits against state agencies and officials for damages, but not prospective injunctive relief. Issue preclusion does not apply to claims against municipal defendants when the initial tribunal lacked jurisdiction to directly decide t
-
The court held that the state's failure to protect a victim from a third-party perpetrator, even with knowledge of the danger, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment unless a special custodial relationship exists, and thus is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
777 F.2d 143·
3d Cir.·
1985-11-21
·cited 30×
The plaintiff prisoner's fear of assault due to unlocked cells does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
-
-
768 F.2d 226·
8th Cir.·
1985-07-15
·cited 30×
Transfers of property by a prisoner in custody to a law enforcement officer violate public policy and are void. The district court abused its discretion in denying sanctions for discovery violations.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants because the plaintiff's civil rights action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
-
761 F.2d 360·
7th Cir.·
1985-04-26
·cited 30×
The court affirmed the jury's award of damages, holding that the exclusion of documents was not an abuse of discretion, the plaintiff's refusal to take other job assignments did not constitute a failure to mitigate damages as a matter of law, the compensatory damages award was no
-
730 F.2d 1002·
5th Cir.·
1984-04-30
·cited 30×
A prisoner's failure to move for a directed verdict on certain claims at trial precludes him from raising the sufficiency of the evidence for those claims on appeal, and jury verdicts will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
-
The court held that a conflict of interest arising from joint representation of a police officer and the municipality by the same county attorney prejudiced the officer, requiring a new trial. It also held that federal claims against Angela Pfeiffer were insubstantial, divesting
-
721 F.2d 1442·
5th Cir.·
1984-01-03
·cited 30×
Assuming probable cause for arrest, a constable's financial incentive under a fee system does not violate constitutional rights, as arrest is executive action not requiring judicial impartiality.
-
The court held that the jury's finding that the plaintiff's article was a substantial motivating factor in his termination was supported by substantial evidence, and that the admission of certain statements by an employment analyst was proper.
-
The state may require male prison inmates, even those with religious objections, to submit to frisk searches by women guards, and the punishment for refusal was not excessive.
-
704 F.2d 491·
10th Cir.·
1983-04-05
·cited 30×
The court held that a prison guard's unauthorized beating of an inmate can violate the Eighth Amendment if it involves the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and that a prisoner's claim must allege intent to harm, excessive force, and resulting severe pain or lasting inju
-
-
Summary judgment for the county and its boards was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether their policies or customs, or lack thereof, caused the plaintiff's constitutional deprivation.
-
The admission of evidence found during an unlawful search, without proper limiting instructions, was not harmless error and requires a new trial. The district court also erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the City of Boston as a defendant.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for Parole Board Member Jefferson, as the record was insufficient to determine if he provided constitutionally adequate due process or if he is entitled to immunity.
-
Federal injunctive relief against state police misconduct is barred by Rizzo v. Goode when plaintiffs fail to prove a causal link between official policy and constitutional violations, and damages cannot be awarded when not contemplated by the parties throughout the litigation.
-
545 F.2d 1059·
7th Cir.·
1976-10-29
·cited 30×
A section 1983 action should be permitted when a prisoner's property is lost by state officials, regardless of whether the loss was intentional or negligent.